It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Refuses to Change Nuclear Position!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Iran Refuses to Change Nuclear Position!


news.bbc.co.uk

Iran has said its position on its nuclear programme remains unchanged.
The announcement comes a day after it delivered a formal response to an EU offer of incentives in exchange for halting uranium enrichment.

A government spokesman said the country was prepared to negotiate with major world powers, but would not give up its uranium enrichment programme.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iran rejects proposals suspension nuclear enrichment




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
It is this statement that made me sit up:


On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


If that's not a generous offer I don't know what is.

Nevertheless the fact Iran is still refusing to suspend its programme of uranium enrichment arguably challenges us to ask 'Why?' rather than shout 'Nuke 'em!' Bludgeoning other nations into following the dictates of powerful nations is hardly progressive. Mature diplomacy takes into consideration the impact of one's demands on the target nation's legitimate right to sovereignty and self-determination, it's perception of its own interests and whether it perceives the demands being placed on it are benevolent.

This is not to advocate a 'soft touch'. Presuming diplomatic efforts to get Iran to cooperate with the international community are what they appear to be on face value, the goal of avoiding the production of nuclear weapons is more likely to be achieved through mutual understanding and cooperation. If the real aim is to provoke conflict diplomacy is a half-hearted sham which gives no serious consideration to Iran's perspective. The real-world analysis therefore needs to address this question: is the rest of the world displaying a constructive attitude?

It appears the offer (on behalf of China, the EU, France, Russia, the UK and US) just rejected is indeed constructive in this way, and its rejection only serves to strengthen the hand of the hawks. Those who have no desire to see another devastating war would, I believe, do well to support those who are exerting serious and apparently genuine efforts to provide Iran with a way out.

It now appears it is the government of Iran that is the greatest danger to the safety and well-being of its people. They have effectively joined those pushing for war in making it more likely.


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought


It is this statement that made me sit up:


On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


If that's not a generous offer I don't know what is.



I'm not sure I'm getting this one -

Treating Iran in the same manner as other states under the NPT would allow them to continue enriching uranium, and to achieve this, they have to give up their uranium enrichment program?
Did I get that right?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Good point.

As I read it the international community is requesting suspension of enrichment activities. Presumably this would be until such point as the peaceful purposes of enrichment could be monitored and verified by an independent body on an ongoing basis.

Anybody else getting deja vu?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I see this as a good thing
It may off failed , But i think it opend the way for more talk and less saber rattling



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought


It is this statement that made me sit up:


On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


If that's not a generous offer I don't know what is.


What would stop the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from setting up "limits" to Iran? I.e they could only produce so much each month/year? Could they even employ this rule on them?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RenegadePsycho
 


I'm not an expert, but from general knowledge I believe it is the [it]grade[/it] of enrichment that matters, not the quantity of material. I think it is therefore the [it]nature[/it] of the enrichment process that would have to be monitored until an atmosphere of mutual trust could be established (-for which read a VERY long time)...



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Its because they WANT nuclear weapons they don't give a damn about peaceful power generation purposes.
People just don't understand the true hard reality of the vile hatred these Islamic extremists who run Iran have for any kind of freedom or democracy.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The actual deal was that the EU would supply them with the uranium for power plants,wich isnt refined to weapons grade,The same offer was made to them by russia.The idea was if they had a source of non weapon grade fuel there would be no need to have enriching facilitys.The enrichment facility can produce weapons grade material,Hence the plane was to give them a supply line for power plant only material.But there rejection of this has many skeptical of there motives,considering they had a peacefull option and turned it down to keep there facility that could produce weapons grade material.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Good for Iran. If we have learned ANYTHING from this whole oil ordeal is whoever controls energy controls YOU. The fact is Iran would have to rely on everyone to ship them their energy. How would America like it if we were told turn down all your nuke plants and Russia and China will send you all your power I dont think we would like that to much would we? What if we ticked off Russia and China somehow and they said sorry we are not shipping you energy that is what would happen if we had to rely on others for our energy. Its not like Iran has a bunch of Coal over there.

The fact is they are in the NPT and have full rights to create their own energy. I have not seen ANY acts of aggression by Iran just talk and even the talk is debatable. Wise up people this has nothing to do with taking out a threat. Do you think Iran would nuke Israel which has some of the most holy sites sitting in Jerusalem? Its propaganda and dont buy into it. Its about oil plain and simple as that. Iraq was not enough we need Irans oil also. Dont be sheeple.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
The fact is they are in the NPT and have full rights to create their own energy. I have not seen ANY acts of aggression by Iran just talk and even the talk is debatable. Wise up people this has nothing to do with taking out a threat. Do you think Iran would nuke Israel which has some of the most holy sites sitting in Jerusalem? Its propaganda and dont buy into it. Its about oil plain and simple as that. Iraq was not enough we need Irans oil also. Dont be sheeple.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by mybigunit]


You do realize they lied about their nuclear work for nearly 20 years - in direct violation of the NPT? They have been asked time and time again to suspend their enrichment work so that their facilities can be fully inspected (on the IAEA's terms, not theirs...) and trust can be re-established. They have no excuse.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio


You do realize they lied about their nuclear work for nearly 20 years - in direct violation of the NPT? They have been asked time and time again to suspend their enrichment work so that their facilities can be fully inspected (on the IAEA's terms, not theirs...) and trust can be re-established. They have no excuse.


Ok then where does that leave Israel who denies they have nukes to this day and are not even on the NPT. Talk about double standards.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by Curio


You do realize they lied about their nuclear work for nearly 20 years - in direct violation of the NPT? They have been asked time and time again to suspend their enrichment work so that their facilities can be fully inspected (on the IAEA's terms, not theirs...) and trust can be re-established. They have no excuse.


Ok then where does that leave Israel who denies they have nukes to this day and are not even on the NPT. Talk about double standards.


I was just about to mention that. The NPT is just a way of the Nuke holders to decide who gets to join their club, it's a useless treaty.


Either way, facts are facts. Nukes or no nukes, Iran isn't attacking anyone.

Whatever you hear about them being a "Threat" is just lies.
They told you Iraq was a threat to the United States... were you one of the people who believed them?

[edit on 5-7-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio

You do realize they lied about their nuclear work for nearly 20 years - in direct violation of the NPT? They have been asked time and time again to suspend their enrichment work so that their facilities can be fully inspected (on the IAEA's terms, not theirs...) and trust can be re-established. They have no excuse.


They dont trust western society as far as they could throw us. And rightly so! When it comes to middle eastern countries, when the west (mainly the US) is given an inch, they take a mile and then another etc. How do they know that as soon as they let inspectors in and they find no nukes, that the US aren't going to invade straight away?

They are the ones at the moment that can crumble the major oil economies of the world if they wanted to..and they know it.

I just hope George Bush and Shimon Peres can cop on and stop harassing them 'cos its gone to the point of ridiculous at this stage. Iran aren't gonna attack Israel! Its just scaremongering on the part of Bush and Peres!

[edit on 16/06/08 by Dermo]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Being_From_Earth
Its because they WANT nuclear weapons they don't give a damn about peaceful power generation purposes.
People just don't understand the true hard reality of the vile hatred these Islamic extremists who run Iran have for any kind of freedom or democracy.


So you want to just invade them and throw the whole region into total chaos, possibly the world? I think extreme caution is required with this situation. Screaming about vile Islamic extremists is not going to get us anywhere.

Do you realise this situation can quickly escalate and become extremely ugly?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Man this whole topic has been getting me quite upset for a while now.

Who gave anyone the authority to dictate whether or not a country has the RIGHT to build nuclear power generation and weapons? I'm sure Iran is extremely aware of the potential consequences of launching a nuclear attack on anyone in the region. So if they wish to build weapons, that is their choice.

But what just pisses me off is that a country like the USA, which possesses a lot of nuclear weapons AND plenty of nuclear power generation facilities, can participate in determining if Iran can build those same things? Who gave us that power? There's far too much hypocrisy going on to even see this as a fair, diplomatic situation. Maybe, when the USA and the other countries telling Iran what to do, they will actually come off as having goodwill and mankind as their motivations. Because to me it just looks like a blatant power grab, and nothing more.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


You said it. A situation so grave it could conceivably lead to regional all-out war - in the Middle East of all places - needs a steady hand: firm resolve, but heavyweight strategists. This is, so to speak, Grand Masters level chess. Both sides have been studying each others' tactics for decades, and, doubtless, scheming, then testing the waters in minor skirmishes (-sometimes literally: reference the capture of British naval personnel). The prize is pretty spectacular: peace & flowing oil. The cost of error is equally striking: a potential conflict the like of which we prefer to reserve for history lessons.

I have stated in no uncertain terms that Iran's national sovereignty and right to self-determination should be respected. Nevertheless it would be naive to ignore the truly extreme rhetoric that has emanated from the lips of President Ahmadinejad himself in recent years. Take the following from December 2005, for example:


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.

The United States, Israel and the European Commission -- along with individual European countries -- have condemned the remark.

Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Last week, he also expressed doubt about the killing by the Nazis of six million Jews during World War II, but Wednesday was the first occasion when he said in public that the Holocaust was a myth.

Source: edition.cnn.com...

When the world is locked in debate with a state headed by someone prepared to make such inflammatory statements and capture foreign military personnel just to increase popularity at home it increases the need to proceed with caution. Tactics that might in some situations be regarded as shrewd movements of pawns might be met with wildly unpredictable responses. Firm but genuine negotiation has to be preferable to brinkmanship, which is why I applaud current diplomatic efforts.

The fly in the ointment is that - wait for it - the President of Iran may not want a peaceful outcome. This (seemingly inflammatory) statement is based on what the man has said to date.


Ahmadinejad adheres to the Hojjatieh's interpretation of Shiism which holds a very messianic and apocalyptic view of the world. It actually predicts a period of universal chaos before the return of the Mahdi (the 12th imam, also known as the hidden imam).

Interestingly even radical Ayatollah Khomeini banned Hojjatieh Shiism in 1983, but it was recently revived. Ahmadinejad sees politics as the "continuation of war by other means." When asked by students to define "what's the most beautiful for a Muslim on earth," he answered very matter of fact: "To kill and be killed."

Ahmadinejad is convinced that he has been chosen by God to hasten the Mahdi's return. The way to achieve this goal for the Iranian president is the occurrence of a nuclear Holocaust. And this is why it is so vital for Ahmadinejad that Iran acquires a nuclear weapon.

Source: www.metimes.com... (-An interesting read. This is just one of myriad such articles on the 'net.)

Click here for an authoritative 9-min. documentary video

I am openly Christian in my beliefs. Yet I have no agenda on this issue - my interest is purely and simply the preservation of peace. I baulk at the use of Christian prophecy to justify specific geopolitical and even military objectives as much as the corresponding use of Muslim texts, as outlined in the above video. I do not believe God wants war.

Others with greater insight than me will be able to make specific proposals on how the consolidated forces of China, the EU, France, Russia, the UK and US can find a way through all this. I just hope their ultimate objective is peace...



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
No-it means giving up enriching uranium while negotiations are ongoing. Their enrichment activities are not currently fully disclosed. The world powers will allow them to enrich, but they have to be verified. That is the problem.


Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by pause4thought


It is this statement that made me sit up:


On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


If that's not a generous offer I don't know what is.



I'm not sure I'm getting this one -

Treating Iran in the same manner as other states under the NPT would allow them to continue enriching uranium, and to achieve this, they have to give up their uranium enrichment program?
Did I get that right?




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I just think it's another one of those setup's with an excuse. I can feel it, people are bogged down by the media that keeps us distracted from what the government's real intentions are. They've lied to us enough times already and it must stop, like seriously... Enough with the child's play.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join